Around January25th we'll surrender in Iraq then send the Messiah over to iran with a crapload of

windmills, solar panels and electric cars and have the Messiah extend his hand of friendship and let the nutcase know how wrong he has been treated by the United States and how much we feel his pain........end of problem.

They can't reach us with any weapons.....if the countries within range don't give enough of a crap then why should we? These countries hate us for what we stand for......namely tolerance and freedom(what's left of it after 9/11 anyway)........so why are we sending billions and billions of our taxpayers dollars to them?

Booney3721 wrote:Try being a dishwasher/Grill cook/ellectrition/garbage disposer and your owner/boss is a fat greek woman who cals you names as Retard, stupid, idiot, molocah, f*** face and tard, and tells you that you was the inspiration for abortion and birth control.

Did you ever see all the container ships that come into this country? A missile or aircraft isn't the only way.

RightWing wrote:if the countries within range don't give enough of a crap then why should we?

Israel cares vary much. If Obama wins, I think there is a good chance that they will attach before inaugaration day to be sure we got their back.

I was talking with a Democrat friend and I couldn't believe he was completely screw our allies. If we are unwilling to fight and die for our allies, it will ultimately be us against the world, because why the hell would anyone be on our side?

RightWing wrote:namely tolerance and freedom(what's left of it after 9/11 anyway)........

What are you talking about? What can't you do today that you could before 9/11? Complete B.S.

RightWing wrote:so why are we sending billions and billions of our taxpayers dollars to them?

Who are we sending billions and billions to? None to Iran. Seriously, what do you propose? Let's see a picture of your Geo. I would bet a good chunk of change you do not drive a car that gets over 35 mpg. Don't worry, I don't think that makes you a hypocrit.

The real senario that I worry about is a nuclear weapon explodes in an Israeli port city. Some terrorist group we have never heard from claims responsibility. All the experts know the bomb came from Iran, but Russia, China, France, etc., all demand Israeli restrain themselve from nuking Iran to oblivion. The same could happen in NYC, but I think Israel would be the test explosion.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

Iraq was part of the Iran strategy because a direct war with Iran was undesirable and still is. We are allies with most people in Iran like we are in Iraq. Iraq was such a crippled government that it was easy to liberate the people. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together has been very difficult especially with the liberals doing everything in their power to undermine the effort. We had Iran in a vice, but when the left turned on Bush, it releaved the pressure and it emboldened Iran.

What do you propose today? Invade Iran or let them get the bomb.

What did you propose then? Invade Iran first.

If not, you really think there would not be a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq?

Ignore them all and spend billions for hunting for a single man hiding God knows where, but either in probably Pakistan or less likely in Iran. Do we invade our ally of Pakistan on the off chance we can find a needle in a stack of needles? Oh that's right you would have had the complete foresight to have capture Bin Laden in Afghanstan and the world would now be peace and love

Iran is the big prize in the whole thing. It was and still is and George Bush knew it then and now. However, this is one issue that requires great nuance to solve with minimum destruction to us and our allies. Obama and his leftist supporters have absolutely no chance of solving it. McCain only has a small chance of success, but that's infinitely better than zero.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

SpinnerMan wrote:That is why Iran was part of the "Axis of Evil" if you recall.

Iraq was part of the Iran strategy because a direct war with Iran was undesirable and still is. We are allies with most people in Iran like we are in Iraq. Iraq was such a crippled government that it was easy to liberate the people. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together has been very difficult especially with the liberals doing everything in their power to undermine the effort. We had Iran in a vice, but when the left turned on Bush, it releaved the pressure and it emboldened Iran.

What do you propose today? Invade Iran or let them get the bomb.

What did you propose then? Invade Iran first.

If not, you really think there would not be a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq?

Ignore them all and spend billions for hunting for a single man hiding God knows where, but either in probably Pakistan or less likely in Iran. Do we invade our ally of Pakistan on the off chance we can find a needle in a stack of needles? Oh that's right you would have had the complete foresight to have capture Bin Laden in Afghanstan and the world would now be peace and love

Iran is the big prize in the whole thing. It was and still is and George Bush knew it then and now. However, this is one issue that requires great nuance to solve with minimum destruction to us and our allies. Obama and his leftist supporters have absolutely no chance of solving it. McCain only has a small chance of success, but that's infinitely better than zero.

Let's just hope that Gualala, CA gets the first thermonuclear device detonation from Iran. Maybe then he will be convinced. Knowing Armchair Jihadist, he'll just blame it on Bush.

I'm terrified of Iran, but I'm just as terrified of that Psycho Kim Jong Il in Korea.

Joint strike on both of them, and its going to have to happen at the same time before one or the other gets reactionary about it.

It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.

Kim Jong Il is in a box and the country is rotting. It's a shame to let the people rot, but that is the best short term strategy. That was the point of bringing China and the other countries into the negotiations. When Kim Jong Il lied, he was lying to China. Embarrassing China is not a good thing for Kim Jong Il. As I described in another post. Diplomacy is just an excuse to buy time. Keeping North Korea in the box has been working and if they continue to rot, ultimately they should collapse on their own. If not, they will be easier to deal with.

Iran will unleash all kinds of terrorism around the world. The first thing they will do is try to drag all the middle eastern countries into a war with Israel. Saddam tried this but he was so impotent that Israel could absorb the attacks without responding. Iran is far more potent and the risk of this strategy succeeding is greater. There is a large disconnect between a large fraction of the people in Iran and the mad mullahs that run the country. There is internal pressure. Ideally, Iran will collapse from within, but that is looking like it will not pan out. Once they get the nukes, all bets are off. I think we have some time on that, but there has got to be a 100% committment from the U.S. that Iran will not get nukes no matter what it takes on our part. No veiled threats. Flat out unambiguous promises. If the rest of the world wants to prevent Iran from being flattened, there has got to be 100% verifiable proof that Iran is out of the nuke business. Not Iraq flattened where we want to build a free nation. Flattened where there is no industrial capacity remaining in the entire nation and they can pick up their own pieces.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

did doofus up top (Bolton or whatever... I can't recall his name... nature's way of protecting me) say that diplomacy hasn't worked in Iran? I didn't know we were even trying. Must have missed something.

The Saudis, Kuwait, and other oil rich countries don't like the idea of an Iran with nukes. They've got more to lose than we do. Hell, they don't like Persians in general and vice versa. Wonder if they'll fund an Isreali strike?

What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers